Integrated Asset Management Pty Ltd v Tekapo Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLC 28

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Integrated Asset Management Pty Ltd v Tekapo Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLC 28 Hearing dates: 19/08/2013 Decision date: 26 September 2013 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Assessor Olischlager Decision: Verdict for the defendant Catchwords: CONTRACTS - rental agreement - agency - undisclosed principal - collateral agreement Cases Cited: Formby Brothers v Formby (1910) 102 LT 116 Fred Drughorn Ltd v Rederiakt Transatlantic [1919] AC 203 Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer [1919] HCA 64; 27 CLR 133 Humble v Hunter (1848) 12 QB 310, [1843-60] All ER Rep 468 Maybury v Atlantic Union Oil Co Ltd [1953] HCA 89; 89 CLR 507 Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 2 AC 199 Talbot Underwriting Ltd v Nausch, Murray & Hogan Inc [2006] EWCA Civ 889 Teheran-Europe Co Ltd v ST Belton (Tractors) Ltd [1968] 2 QB 545 White v Baycorp Advantage Business Information Services Ltd (2006) 200 FLR 125 Texts Cited: Dal Pont, Law of Agency (2008), 2nd ed, Lexis Nexis Category: Principal judgment Parties: Integrated Asset Management Pty Ltd (plaintiff) Tekapo Pty Ltd (defendant) Representation: Mr Aquilina (for the plaintiff) Mr Challen (for the defendant) File Number(s): 2012/331803 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1The plaintiff, Integrated Asset Management Pty Ltd, seeks to recover money due under a rental agreement against the defendant, Tekapo Pty Ltd. Integrated Asset Management asserts that it is the undisclosed principal for Toshiba (Australia) Pty Ltd. Toshiba entered into an agreement with Tekapo on 22 March 2006 to rent a Toshiba photocopier for a term of 60 months commencing 8 March 2006. The rental term was to be automatically renewed for further periods of 90 days until such time as the agreement was terminated. The rental payment per month was $248.60. 2Integrated Asset Management has commenced these proceedings seeking to recover the sum of $3,729 for unpaid rental payments due for the months of February 2011 to May 2012. 3Tekapo disputes liability on two grounds; firstly that Integrated Asset Management Pty Ltd has no standing to sue on the contract as an undisclosed principal and secondly, the rental agreement ended after 60 months when ownership in the rental equipment transferred to Tekapo. 4For the reasons that follow the Court is satisfied that the claim by Integrated Asset Management fails.